What's the nastiest type of evil?

There's a poster count in the bottom-right corner, new friend.

You're not gonna manage to hurt anyone's feelings by proclaiming yourself too cool to read books.

or this good ol' lad

I don't know why you're convinced that I would defend nietzsche, but suit yourself. And as far as "reading books goes", I am a scientist, and my work actually matters, if only a little. At least more than zero.

you're on an anonymous board. you don't have to defend your honor, you fucking moron.

Lawful good

I'd say it's very much the reverse. Ideology is responsible for vastly more damage than any number of individual psychopaths. Look at the results of Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, fundamentalist Christianity, Islamic extremism etc etc.

On top of that, even evil ideologies can find followers when presented the right way. Far more infectious and dangerous than someone who just rapes and kills for their own pleasure. While an individual psychopath might be capable of more evil deeds than an individual demagogue, the demagogue can mobilize support and indirectly do more damage than any one person could ever dream of doing alone.

Why doesn't philosophy matter?

>fundamentalist Christianity
The creation of modern civilization and the birth of near every field of science, eventually leading to the near eradication of many forms of suffering in the parts of the world which it reached.

Chaotic Evil is the worst as it exists purely as a destructive force. It cannot create or improve upon anything and thus will only sow misery; its sole redeeming quality is the ability to destroy societal evils, but it doesn't offer any sort of replacement and thus leaves things in a worst state than they were before.

Why does it?

>modern civilization
Define modern, because fundamentalist Christianity hasn't been an appreciable influence on any modern state for decades
>science
Greece don't real. Rome don't real. China don't real. Islamic Golden Age don't real. India don't real. Mesopotamia don't real. Hell, even many scientific advances made in the Christian world were made by explicity secular or deist people or groups

You're either trolling or a fucking idiot.

>why does the only thing separating us from non-sentient animals matter?

Idk user, but I'd say the ability to be self aware and to think about concepts like morality and ethics is pretty important.

Chaotic Evil, hands down, because people generally look for stability before they look for fulfillment or happiness, and CE offers neither. Lawful Evil at least keeps things consistent, predictable, and therefore manageable. Moreover, sufficiently long-sighted LE is functionally equivalent to LN. Your citizens are your property, therefore killing them off is wasteful. The easiest and more effective way to avoid costly and disruptive rebellions is to maintain a degree of public contentment. A healthy population is a productive population. Therefore, in order to callously and ruthlessly maximize profit and standing over time, the evil dictator is best served building hospitals and public grainaries.

So what separates man from animal is our capacity to pretend that talking about thinking is a real job?

>Define modern
Western civilization
>because fundamentalist Christianity hasn't been an appreciable influence on any modern state for decades
lmao. Nearly every aspect of our culture is deeply rooted in fundamentalist tradition
>Greece don't real. Rome don't real. China don't real. Islamic Golden Age don't real. India don't real. Mesopotamia don't real.
The catholic church alone directly sponsored ten times as advancement as all of those put together. Also the islamic golden age is literally not real, they just conquered Indian intellectuals.

No, what separates us is self-awareness. An animal can repeat experiments to gain knowledge. It isn't self-aware.

>judging people on whether they have "real jobs" or not

Your boss must really give you all the validation you need while you disregard art and philosophy as real and necessary things for society.

My work is not strictly nessisary for society either. But what separates a scientist or an artist from a philosopher, is that the former at least produce something of subjective value to someone other than themselves, while a philosopher produces nothing.

Lawful evil, because it's the most self-sustaining long term. Chaotic evil results in quick, violent bursts of evil but usually ends up burning itself out or calling down retribution. Neutral evil is self-serving enough it can be mostly suppressed.

What makes you think a philosopher produces nothing? Many of the ideas written by philosophers are incredibly potent and world-changing, affecting governments, culture, and even indivudual growth; that's gotta have some kinda production value, but then again, I don't know what your standards are in this regard.

K, clearly a troll at this point. Thanks for the laughs. For kicks, could you maybe name some of the vast advancements in science that were the direct result of the Roman Catholic church?

>philosophy has zero subjective value to anyone
Wow, I didn't know you knew every single human to ever exist as well as what they think and value

Not who you were talking too. I think philosophy is important, but is often given more importance than it deserves. It should tint your life, not color it.

Apes have been known to blame misdeeds on other animals without prompting, demonstrating a capacity to understand that other animals are actors unto themselves, and that other beings respond to their actions in ways they themselves do not. One example would be a gorilla who tore the sink out of her enclosure wall, then blamed her kitten for it.

Many animals possess self awareness. What sets humans apart is the capacity to question. Many animals exhibit curiosity, but only humans engage others in seeking information. No ape, for example, has ever asked a question.

>Many of the ideas written by philosophers are incredibly potent and world-changing
pfffft

Kind of a strange last example there, I'd imagine any kind of animal that can form ideas is capable of questions, such as "Is this guy dead?" "Is this situation dangerous?" "Should I run from this guy or should I fight him?"

That's my point. Most animals can wonder "is that thing dead?" Literally none of them, even those capable of communicating, will ask about it. They'll seek to figure it out on their own, because they can't conceive of others knowing things they don't.

>no ape has ever asked a question
Fuckin what? Gorillas and chimps can sign and ask questions all the time. Animals observe other animals for information as well, that's not at all unique to us. A magpie is aware that it exists and is separate from other individuals, but humans can introspect. If you asked Koko the gorrilla what a soul is, she wouldn't understand. If you asked a person, they would think about it. That's philosophy, and it's unique to us as far as we know.

Those examples are not how it works, or how it ever worked. Read the fucking book for once in your life, troll.

>Please try again.
>Please try again.
>Please try again.
>Please try again.
>Please try again.

So humanity's greatest strength is realizing that we're dumbasses?

More like realizing other people have knowledge and feelings distinct from, and just as valid as, our own.

Like this guy?

That's not true though. Just off the top of my head, there are communities of monkeys in the congo that post sentries to warn of eagles nearby. When the sentry yells, all of them retreat to the inner limbs of the trees where the eagle can't snatch them from. They clearly know that the sentry has seen an eagle, and do not attempt to climb up into the canopy to verify that.

This. Every time something like NotNazism happens or some lasting cult of evil is started in a way that leads it to being mostly self-sustaining in any campaign I've been in it's always been a result of Lawful Evil just being itself.
Chaotic Evils are contained to the individuals personal reach and lifespan and you can cap Neutral Evil by giving it what it wants but once Lawful Evil gets rolling down that hill kill the individual all you want the damage has been done and will continue to do so.
It's like fucking Hydra where you can snuff out all the heads you want but more will just pop up.

Not only that, but you could argue that the natural tendency of Lawful alignments is to trend towards lawful evil eventually due to corruption and bureaucratic obfuscation.

In an ideal situation, it would provide the why.

At least what most people consider philosophy to be. Considering science is technically a philosophy of the natural world. And its supposed to be solely the realm of how.

The problem is, we have a lot of overqualified idiots who think they can find a fundamental particle of morality, and then construct an objective, universal all situation morality out of it.

No morality will ever be so clear cut, because situations affect the value of actions.

Take ye olde trolly car. Most people would of course in a vacuum say pulling the lever is the most moral position. Some will recognize the tendency toward non-intervention should they know their actions will kill someone.

Yet, what if the man operating the trolly noticed the five, and you merely think that it won't stop in time, and by pulling the lever you've caused the car to derail, killing not only all six people on the track, but wounding everyone inside the trolly as well.

And that's just a retarded little thought experiment.

Let's look at one that likely happened, ever.

You're a primitive hunter. In trying to feed your tribe, you have accidentally wandered into the hunting grounds of a nearby rival tribe.
One of their hunters has found you as you finally track down your quarry.
He wants you to leave your kill, and the land. But you've spent a week tracking this beast, and you can't go home empty handed.

What is the moral option?

The one whose actions will under any other circumstance harm a greater number of people than it saves. A soldier saves himself when he kills his opponent, a murderer saves no one.

The chaotic BBEG is usually just mentally ill, so they can't be held accountable for their actions until they go to hell for them.

The lawful evil has plenty of time to think about what he's doing and is in sound mind to do it, so he will usually be less forgivable.

I don't buy the idea that a neutral evil is just being a dick for the sake of it. It's probably motivated by some sort of hatred that developed by their tragic/ traumatic back story. That, or they were just born into a culture of evil, like Drow or Orcs.

The lawful evil sees an empire where everything is going okay and thinks "I'm gonna fuck all this up because I want nice things". So i'm going with that.

Changing the parameters of the trolley changes the thought experiment. The while point is that if you don't pull it WILL kill 5 people, and if you do it WILL kill one. It's supposed to be a situation in a vacuum. The philosphy part is whether action that results in one death or inaction that results in 5 is "good" and why.

That logic is severely flawed. If you can't see the flaw, then let me help you: the murderer targets sexual predators.

How could anyone defend letting 5 people die instead of 1?

What if the soldier is committing genocide?

People are garbage and the earth is already getting overpopulated. Also you may be liable for the death of the one man if you take direct action.

They probably deserved it

Animals don't get murdered, they get slaughtered

>In philosophy, we make claims then offer arguments to support them

Nietzsche did that all the time I would re-read him if I were you.

Then he's not killing an enemy combatant, and it's murder.

It's treason then

Like was said, there's a very real force that causes people to not want to pull the lever.

You pull the lever, and you are directly responsible for the death. You don't, and you aren't.

It's somewhat related to the bystander affect, in which a large group of uninvolved spectators will all assume someone else will do something to help, and therefore none of them do.

This is because, helping in many situations carries a cost, and sometimes that cost can be that you die as well as the person you're attempting to help. So, we are only likely to help those directly known to us.

Aren't you responsible for the five deaths if you know the train is going to hit them unless you pull the lever?

Yes, and that's what I mean by a "fundamental particle" of morality.

The trolly, the lifeboat, they're all absolutely worthless thought experiments, because the answers are obvious and simple. The justifications are likewise obvious and simple, and exploring them leads no where.

It's similar to how the ship of theseus tries to create a binary where there is none, as a ship is a defined collection of parts that serves the purpose of sailing. So, yes, its the same damn ship, no none of the parts are the originals. No you don't die in your sleep or every four years.

No, actually. Even if we're talking about the version in which they're tied to the track.

And it is simple: No jurisdiction on earth wants to open that can of worms, in which anyone is responsible for not stopping something.

Sometimes I think we should, but I understand that could really spiral into a fucking mess.

in this case the line of thought is likley "no, it's the person that tied them to the track's fault not mine."

Here's the redeeming thing about human nature.

If you were in that situation, you would regret either choice. Even if the bystander effect did cause you to freeze and not throw the lever.

Prequel meme or are you suggesting that soldiers refusing to participate in genocide is treasonous?

Why does it got to be "or"

If that's the case then I can tell you that at least in the US military, service members can legally refuse unlawful orders (which would include genocide obviously). I imagine it's similar in most western militaries.

Supposedly applies to all militaries belonging to nations that have signed up to Hague conventions on conduct of warfare.
But good luck on beating the charge of mutiny without evidence that it was an unlawful order...

I think both kinds of evil are two parts of the same coin. The image of a nihilistic sadist who believes in and cares for nothing outside his own amusement inspires people to flee to strict ideological violence and totalitarianism. The image of another organized boot at their throat inspires some to flee to the comfort of absolute egotistical anarchy, but either way chances are good they'll put a spin on it and believe in themselves as being the one restoring goodness while they're rotting from the inside out. Rare are those individuals who won't even dress it up, and just embrace cruelty for it's own sake, and they can do that for either side of that coin. The totalitarian only does more to history because law is more dangerous than chaos in terms of large impact: organized regimented groups are always more threatening than unorganized groups of individuals. That said life under the totalitarian is mostly livable if miserable, while life under the chaotic void left by the anarchist is short, miserable, and brutish.

The kind that doesn't draw a line in the sand anywhere. Whether ideological or depraved, Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic, if they do not see any action as too extreme or too disgusting to be beneath them then they are the worst kind of evil.

Fair points, but in strictly utilitarian terms "lawful evil" has done far, far more damage. The "chaotic" type very rarely inspires any kind of following or mobilizes the kind of resources needed to do evil on any kind of large scale.

>The totalitarian only does more to history because law is more dangerous than chaos in terms of large impact: organized regimented groups are always more threatening than unorganized groups of individuals.

This is exactly why, in my opinion, "lawful" evil is the worse of the two. Of course it's partly because in my opinion murdering 2 people painlessly is worse than, say, murdering one in a particularly cruel way. Compare Charles Manson (chaotic) to Adolf Hitler (lawful). Manson was arguably more deranged and certainly more outwardly psychopathic, but Hitler caused destruction and death that absolutely dwarfs Manson and his little cult.

Still there are definitely arguments to be made for either, and I totally get where you're coming from.

So chaotic then

Industrious Lawful Evil

Bump

All metaphilosophy is philosophy. You can't evaluate philosophy from an outside perspective; you have to be already sold on the values of one kind of philosophy to evaluate any kind of philosophy. Every school of thought is true according to itself and false according to all the others. This is why philosophy is, always and forever, lost up its own asshole.

You'll also notice that any questions that begin in the realm of philosophy but that receive definitive answers (whether atoms exist, how convergent infinite sums work in the case of Zeno's paradox) no longer belong in philosophy but in some other field, usually science or maths. If a question is still a philosophical one, then there is no.answer for it yet that's worth taking seriously.

Lawful evil isn't even as evil as chaotic neutral

>chaotic evil
>destructive
Only when they get bored, user.

I disagree.

Worst, lawful evil does more than sustain itself, but it can actively corrupt and become the social norm.

>The creation of modern civilization and the birth of near every field of science, eventually leading to the near eradication of many forms of suffering in the parts of the world which it reached.
All that progress started happening under the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans way before Christianity, and somehow managed to continue despite fundamentalist Christians REEEEEEEEing against it every single step of the way.

You could probably live in a tolerable situation under lawful and neutral, chaotic would probably do awful things

>i'm smarter than everyone
Stop larping and do your homework.

Whichever is most powerful.